Same chemistry; different mechanism.
Copper WILL save chemical costs for pool owners that haven't learned to maintain stable chlorine levels. Algae is the #2 chlorine consumer (next to sunlight) in outdoor pools. Copper is not affected by sunlight, so it doesn't disappear on you the same way chlorine can.
I have no problem with folks using copper if
(a) they understand it's not a sanitizer, and won't make their pool safe to swim;
(b) they understand the stains and green hair problem, and don't mind;
(c) they have some reliable mechanism for managing their chlorine levels.
The problem we have here is that many units (like Nature2 or the Frog) may add copper . . . or they may not. So they are inherently unreliable. Also, systems that do work to add copper are often sold as "chlorine free" . . . and as noted, "chlorine-free" = "unsanitary", with the PHMB (Baquacil) systems being the only (sorta) exception. For us, it's easier to tell people, "Just say no", than to explain, and then help them manage the intricacies of a copper system.
The manufacturers don't do this, because they get better press and better 'testimonials' by running copper alone. Lightly loaded pools treated with copper CAN remain pretty clear. But, copper and chlorine are an uneasy mix, and most pool owners don't know that their pool is unsanitary, so they don't care. When they get sick, with poop to mouth (fecal-oral) diseases, like 'dire-rear' and other GI infections, they don't know that these are commonly transmitted in pools . . . and don't WANT to know that that's how they got sick!
Grossed out yet? I can keep going!
Unfortunately understanding pool sanitation involves knowing all sorts of things many people -- other than 13 year old boys -- would rather not know. (There was even a scientific study on the average amount of fecal material added to a pool by the average adult swimmer! I've talked to the guy that did the study, at U Az Tucson)
Bookmarks